ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Hey folks, was just curious how many words can I post at once here. Some of you that are not new here like I am please give me some advice here. The article I started out talking about is almost ready for some smarter folks that I to take a look. I need to trim some of the fat but right now it is 1,650 words (about three times what the Examiner likes but hey, I write like I talk, too damn much). Can I just paste it here? Or would that not be an appropriate use of this forum?

Hilarious! But the scary part is that the first time I heard this argument was at a apologetics conference that two Christian friends invited me to. The speaker, Mike Lincona, was quite good. He was very persuasive and the language of these professional apologists is really slick. Several times that day I was presented with things that I just knew could not be true, and later research revealed why, but on the spot I was sometimes unable to explain to my friends why these things were untrue.

All - Thanks for the replies. Maybe later today I will post the draft on my personal website, then after getting feedback I will publish it. The easiest thing to do would be to just publish it, then update it based on feedback but I don't want to risk my credibility by accidentally posting something STOOPID! I guess I'll decide when I see how I feel about the draft.

Ron - no worries on now knowing that much about the minimal facts approach. It is relatively new and frankly rocked me back on my heels when I first heard it. Not because it is any good, but because it makes some claims that made me think to myself "well, if THAT'S true then the apologists might be on to something now". The short version is that Dr. Gary Habermas surveyed most of the relevant literature (in English, French and German) from about 1970 to today (he is still updating his database I think) and pulled out only a minimum number of facts that are agreed upon by nearly all scholars who have written on the subject of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. There are 12 "facts" that he claims are agreed upon by about 95% (except for one that is about 75%) of scholars, even the atheists. Among these are Jesus died due to crucifixion, he was buried, the tomb was found empty, the disciples truly believed they saw the resurrected Christ, the list goes on but they are all of that nature.

I have many problems with this approach, not least of which not a single one of these things are actually "facts". And ultimately, even if they were "facts" none of these things are best explained by someone who was dead coming back to life and magically appearing to folks (many of whom didn't recognize him) later.

What I am looking for and I might have to read Habermas' entire dissertation to get it, is how does he justify saying "almost all scholars agree, even the atheists", when some of the guys he cite, like Robert Price, doubt Jesus ever even existed in the first place.

OK, slightly different topic (maybe not so slight...). Anyone here interested in discussing the finer points of the "minimal facts approach"? I am writing a series of articles refuting the major apologia and I decided to take on this one first. I've got a pretty good start of it but would like a second (and third and fourth...) look before I publish it.